Andrew Mark Miller

The big news in Washington today, besides Jeff Flake deciding he would run away from Trump, was the fact that we now know Hillary’s campaign funded the notorious Trump dossier that was filled with nonsense and lies.

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Donald Trump as part of a project that led to the infamous dossier compiled by a former British spy.

According to a bombshell report from The Washington Post, Marc E. Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign and DNC, and his law firm, Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS last April to investigate Trump.

Fusion, which was founded by former Wall Street Journal reporters, then hired former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to look into the former real estate baron’s activities in Russia.

Doesn’t get much shadier than that.

You’d think that Hillary’s campaign would remain as silent as possible considering the fact this is such a damaging story.

Her former campaign spokesman couldn’t contain his frustration to the point where he went on Twitter and tried to justify the unjustifiable.

Yikes.

It’s nice to see he’s not sorry.

That brings up an obvious problem.

Right? What is this guy thinking?

A lot of you might not know who Brian Fallon is and that’s perfectly reasonable. He’s a forgettable character. He was the campaign spokesman for one of the worst campaigns ever run. Don’t take my word for it. A study proved it.

A new study by the Wesleyan Media Project has found that the 2016 presidential campaign run by Hillary Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst-run political operations in years.

Interestingly, the directors of the study dispute the argument that “advertising doesn’t matter” in elections. Clinton’s failure to advertise in certain key states, they argue, was the biggest reason for her defeat by Donald Trump.

The study also backs the view that Clinton’s focus on identity politics and emphasis on condemning her opposition contributed to a campaign message devoid of substance with no clear message on policy.

Published in The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the study found that one candidate in particular, Hillary Clinton, “almost ignored discussions of policy.” The study states the lack of advertising effectiveness “may owe to the unusual nature of the presidential campaign with one nonconventional candidate and the other using an unconventional message strategy.”

Disaster. It got worse than that.

Did you know that Hillary spent more money on TV ads in Omaha than she did in Michigan and Wisconsin? Combined.

That has to be one of the dumbest decisions in modern campaign history.

In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton’s campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either.

Strategic decisions can make all the difference in a close race. Clinton lost the White House (despite winning the popular vote) to Republican Donald Trump on the strength of about 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That is the definition of a close race.